The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the nominator and one participant have been blocked during the discussion, there's still significant other well-elaborated contributions that still favour deletion. The subject does not appear to fulfil the relevant notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 14:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nivas Adithan[edit]

Nivas Adithan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Nactor#1. Played the lead in Naanga and small roles in several other films. Small roles in around eight films is not enough to establish notability. This is a case of WP:Too soon until the actor plays the lead in more films. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sources in the article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. There is normal routine coverage related to films, but nothing that meets V SIGCOV about the individual. It might be WP:TOOSOON.   // Timothy :: talk  11:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: He has been a part of several notable films, I can find a few news references also, but they are mostly routine and it seems to be TOOSOON at this time. Billyshudson (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is Billyshudson's 3rd edit in Wikipedia altogether. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JadranSport[edit]

JadranSport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite existing here for 14 years, I actually believe that this fails all relevant guidelines. Please hear me out. It is a thinly veiled advert at best and the article that we see currently was written by an WP:SPA with clear connections to JadranSport. As per WP:INHERENTWEB even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists. There is a potential 'claim' to notability through Walter Zenga but, as per WP:INHERITWEB, Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable.

Sources:

• [1] - passing mention
• [2] - passing mention
• [3] - listed as a source on a football story
• [4] - unreliable (blog)

The entire article is sourced only to Jadran's website. It is also full of WP:OR and is promotional from start to finish. Spiderone 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. GiantSnowman 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs major cleanup, but the news site was influential in its day and was used as a source by major Croatian newspapers back when it was operating: [5] [6] [7] and even other team's web sites: [8]. We even cite it over at our fully professional leagues list! However I can't find any articles on the internet directly discussing the periodical, and I don't know how to do a search from 2004. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Per sources presented by SportingFlyer. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can a website be notable simply because it is cited as a source by others even if it fails GNG? Spiderone 16:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiderone: I don't have a definitive answer, but I tend to extend lenience in that regard towards news outlets, since news outlets seldom write about other news outlets (unless they get into some kind of trouble). If you have some time to spare, discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novi magazin offers some food for thought. Personally, I would weigh in the "citation count" in determining whether to keep an article (but I really have no opinion on this one). No such user (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is not enough significant news coverage about this publication to establish why it is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not have enough sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden reed care[edit]

Wooden reed care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has lots of references, but is a) basically a how-to guide, b) filled with misinformation, c) inaccurately named, and d) strangely focused on the hygiene aspect. Not a subject that merits an encyclopedia article. Special-T (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTGUIDE and doesn't seem that encyclopedic in its coverage. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree WP:NOTGUIDE, slight expansion of Reed (mouthpiece)#Care and maintenance would be okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Because Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTGUIDE. Serankail (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion has been significantly disrupted by suspicious COI editors and now-blocked users, but even excluding this participation there seems to be good-faith disagreement from established users as to whether this individual is technically notable. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md Muhsin Alam[edit]

Md Muhsin Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Commander of Para Commando Brigade, Fails WP:MILPERSON. Per WP:MILPERSON, Generally two levels above a squadron e.g commander of a division can be considered notable. Didn't receive any highest award. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (only passing mention). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per normal notability protocol, a Division commander is "generally" notable. This subject formation is an independent special forces brigade that is directly under command of Chief of Army Staff and used as an Army strategic reserve. Being important as such, Commander of this special forces formation is "Warrant A" holder, that puts him at par to a conventional Division commander who is "generally" notable.User:tahmid8440

@Tahmid8440:, You clearly have WP:COI here. Otherwise there is no way you can get this type of image. Please WP:disclose your connection. Also please provide sources that are significant coverage & independent of the subject (not just some passing mention). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Not notable, There's a bunch of references in the article but not a single one covers him (saw the title). Google search only returns some other peoples image, web section returns also others sometimes holding the name in a list. I fear that the article might fail GNG. — A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 04:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a general officer clearly does pass WP:SOLDIER #2. Therefore the entire nomination is effectively invalid as it is based on an incorrect assumption. Generally two levels above a squadron e.g commander of a division can be considered notable has no basis in any notability guideline. In any case, two levels above a squadron is, in fact, a brigade! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp as usual you portray WP:SOLDIER as a guideline when it is just an Essay. Just being a general officer does not establish Notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not valid it's strange how you cited this article as failing it. Even though it clearly doesn't. It isn't a guideline, but it is a standard for notability of military biographies widely accepted by editors (with a few exceptions, of course, of which you are one of the most vocal). I would point you once again to this list establishing the existence of consensus among editors. We both know we have differing points of view and that you don't accept the validity of WP:SOLDIER or the clear consensus to keep officers of this rank. Is there really any need to have this discussion on every single AfD discussion about a senior military officer? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list that you made? The list that shows that people think that SOLDIER is a guideline when its not? That list? Yet again you say that I don't accept the validity of SOLDIER, which is irrelevant. SOLDIER an Essay, which is clearly subject to WP:GNG, so if there isn't SIGCOV in multiple RS, even if someone meets one of the criteria they don't deserve a page. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so because I made the list and I don't agree with you it's not valid? Are you maybe suggesting I left off AfDs that didn't agree with me and thereby challenging my integrity? I can assure you that I did not. I made a thorough search and included every relevant AfD I could find. Then you apparently challenge consensus because it was made by people who don't agree with you! Can you not see how it might look like you think your opinion is valid and other editors' differing opinions are not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given your continued mischaracertisaton of WP:SOLDIER and ignoring of the discussion that led to it: [[9]], I don't see that anyone should pay any notice to your list. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you are questioning my integrity. Glad we got that (and your attitude towards those who disagree with you) straight. But I would point out that I have not mischaracterised WP:SOLDIER in any way and that the discussion you keep citing is irrelevant as to the consensus established over years at AfD (even though you won't accept it as the evidence has been compiled by an editor who disagrees with you, and in any case most of the editors who participated in those discussions are apparently wrong). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The claimed consensus is based on the misunderstanding among many Users that WP:SOLDIER is a guideline and that just meeting one of the 6 criteria automatically establishes notability absent SIGCOV in multiple RS. The discussion leading to SOLDIER is not irrelevant, it goes to the heart of what SOLDIER was intended to achieve. Otherwise why else would it be specifically referenced at the top of SOLDIER?. Its clear that you like pages about non-notable one-Stars and will claim SOLDIER is a guideline or point to your list to try to justify their retention.Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Once again, you simply seem to be using the "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and/or misguided" argument. Which last time I looked wasn't valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Once again, you can't justify your position wrt the background to SOLDIER and so just start throwing baseless accusations. Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suppose it's possible that other cultures use words like "blessed" when describing and individual with a child, however, the tone of the article seems like a possible "COI" or, at the very least, presents a non-neutral POV. I'm not from Bangladesh so I won't !vote because I do believe GNG should be applied regionally and even locally when evidence can be provided. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A badly written article does not equate to a non-notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SOLDIER and WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, notable subject as a general officer. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - regardless of claims that "it's only an essay" the fact is that it is long-established consensus that being a general officer makes a person notable. Also I can't help but doubt that there would be much call to delete the page of a one-star officer in a first- or second-world military force. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:The Bushranger test that supposed consensus at MILHIST as you will find a great divergence of opinions as to whether or not "being a general officer makes a person notable." and you should also read/reread the discussion that led to WP:SOLDIER: [[10]] Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject passes WP:SOLDIER. Serankail (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Brigadier General is a one star GENERAL according to Commonwealth country military policy (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/One-star+general) and (https://www.britannica.com/topic/general). Asifuzzaman11 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have no problem if community thinks this article should be kept. However, it looks like WP:Canvassing is going on here, above two account was inactive & suddenly they logged in & vote's here. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I share your concerns and also regarding Billyshudson below. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Different countries have different ranking, I agree with Asifuzzaman11, he passes WP:SOLDIER.Billyshudson (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shan (actor)[edit]

Shan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actor fails WP:Nactor#1. Minor roles in several films means nothing. The actors has supporting roles in Dora and X Videos. However, this is WP:Too soon until the actor stars in the lead roles in a film or wins an award. Also, all sources are not independent of the subject and are not in depth. Also note that the user who made the page is named Shan and his only contibution is making this page. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. The author's username and talk page gives reason to think there is a significant COI involved in the article.   // Timothy :: talk  11:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As TimothyBlue has said, the article fails the notability guidelines. I don't think anything more needs to be said about it then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, it is Too soon, just because they have had a minor role does not make them inherently notable, so fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanha Tasnia[edit]

Tanha Tasnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entry. No significant work fails WP:NACTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.186.254 (talk) 18:27, October 30, 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text was erroneously added to the article itself. I have no opinion of my own at this time.‎ --Finngall ^talk 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't either find anything online. Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress who does not meet our inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failing WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. Simply WP:TOOSOON at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unni Mukundan Films[edit]

Unni Mukundan Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject fails to satisfy WP:COMPANY. It has received some media coverage because of Unni Mukundan. The production company has not released any film at the moment. Its founder (actor) has played lead roles in Meppadiyan and Bruce Lee (2021 film), the two upcoming films talks much about production company than a film itself. It appears to me possible undisclosed paid ending or WP:COI. Also, relationships do not confer notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Krug[edit]

Scott Krug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable enough for an article. BJackJS talk 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep United States state legislators are notable; the article needs to be expanded. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NPOL, first bullet point (state-wide office). Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - WP:NPOL generally gives notability to US state-level legislators, under the presumption they gain decent coverage, which appears to be true in this case. See [11], [12], [13], etc. He's clearly notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NPOL #1. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as Krug serves as a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, the state's lower house. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 18:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NPOL as a a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Willsome429. Royalbroil 12:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Passes WP:NPLO. --Enos733 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NPOL and WP:SNOW-close or, if the nominator withdraws and the discussion qualifies for it, close as WP:Speedy keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural request for nominator: @BJackJS: Please consider withdrawing this so it can be closed by an un-involved non-administrator as a "speedy keep (non-admin closure)." This will free up administrators for other tasks. Otherwise, either the discussion will be closed early as a snow close by an administrator or it will be closed after the 7th day by an administrator or other experienced editor. This is a request and a recommendation, you are free to ignore it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:POLITICIAN --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OurStage[edit]

OurStage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Internet music platform. Previously deleted at AfD over a decade ago. Provided references are an endless parade of broken links and press releases without an actual news article on the company. No better references found. --Finngall ^talk 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It reads like an advertisement and a large majority of the edits were done by accounts that only edited this one article - a pretty strong indicator that it was added by people who are connected to the company. Special-T (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertish articles that fails the notability guidelines. Which is a clear delete in my book. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria[edit]

Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD. A couple of conferences were held there? Every hotel has conferences....... Wikiwriter700 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Only historic and/or major hotels such as the Manila Hotel satisfies WP:NBUILD. HiwilmsTalk 08:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep It's been less than six months since the last AfD request was closed, and now we're doing another one? This is arguably one of the biggest hotels in the Ortigas Center area, so if we're using a narrow reading of WP:NBUILD that implies only "major hotels" get coverage, then this meets it. In the last AfD the subject was proven to have sufficiently met WP:GNG, and it is still the case this time around. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It was agreed to be kept in the previous AfD. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - has just about enough news coverage for GNG Spiderone 10:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The previous AfD was only a few months ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and close: We need to understand that we cant raise AFD in short duration, it is literally wasting the time and attention of reviewers. Billyshudson (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is Billyshudson's 7th edit in Wikipedia altogether. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A discussion held a few months down the road, with the sources presented here incorporated into the article, might help to lead to a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pavlina[edit]

Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I think Steve Pavlina was questionably notable even in 2008 to 2010 when this was published, it should be fairly clear today that he does not meet notability standards as an author or speaker, or even blogger, per wp:Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danihan (talk • contribs) 20:01, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. @Danihan: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please take care to more fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One of the NYT articles merely quotes his own site to describe him ("whose Web site (stevepavlina.com) describes him as a 'personal development expert'”); that indicates to me that the author didn't even care enough to look any further. Many of the other RS seem to be solely about his thoughts on sleep. I think these "self-help" BLPs are always hard, as so many seem to exist mostly for quasi-promotional purposes, but I'm willing to change "vote"... Caro7200 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pavlina was more notable over a decade ago but no so much today. Ten pages of a Google search turned up no reliable third-party coverage at all, while any existing notable sources in the article contain brief mentions of his sleep habits (The Guardian refers to him as a "blogger"). Article overall is mostly puff material with nearly half its citations from his own website, and when your biggest notable celebrity influence is Lindsay Lohan...yeah. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even in 2008-2010 Pavlina did not meet notability standards, as far as I can tell. Reviewing the other deletion discussions, the main reason the page was previously kept was because his blog had a high Alexa rating at one point. There is almost zero third-party coverage or news coverage, none that I can find that goes beyond a passing reference. Danihan (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I found discussions of his blog on newspapers.com: York Daily Record (York, Pennsylvania)13 Nov 2006, Page 9; Edmonton Journal (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)30 Aug 2007, Page 1; Lansing State Journal (Lansing, Michigan)27 Nov 2011, Page 34; Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin)23 Nov 2011, Page 19; and The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana)11 Jan 2008, Page 9. These are more than passing references/casual mentions. None of them are a "hey, that's really great in-depth coverage!" either, hence the "weak" keep. However, I note the geographic disparity and the relative breadth of time. I believe he was notable in 2010, and notability is not temporary. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOTTEMP applies. If the subject of an article was "unquestionably notable" 10-12 years ago then they are notable. 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'd say these newspaper references show that he was not notable even in 2008-2010. Here are the actual articles mentioned, so anyone who wants can take a look easily. Pavlina did not meet notability standards in the past according to these -- these articles seem to be "passing references," especially in two of three mentions. He is not the central topic of any of the articles and is merely quoted for a sentence or two at most as a blogger. Nothing leads to "unquestionable notability," these do not seem to be Significant Coverage per WP:SIGCOV but rather "Trivial mentions". Danihan (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete it seems as though everything that was suppose to make him notable in the other AfDs ended up being just brief mentions. So, there appears to be a lack of in-depth coverage out there on him. Maybe the newspaper mentions that were found by 78.26 are enough, but I'm not 100% convinced that they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Evergrey. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Discovery[edit]

The Dark Discovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. I would redirect to Evergrey, but that article has also been nominated. No objection to redirecting if the latter AfD is closed as "keep". The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 18:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable album by a notable band. Heiko Gerber (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Heiko Gerber: Rationale expanded. I am unopposed to a redirect to Evergrey discography, but as written this type of !vote rationale is best avoided per WP:Verifiability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all albums to Evergrey discography. The track listings can be condensed into collapsed templates there. BD2412 T 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Heiko Gerber. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. sputnikmusic appears to be a user-generated review, thus not helping at all towards notability not RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID
  2. metal templeThough the site itself is of potentially questionable notability (also not listed at WP:RSP), this is the first source with any depth whatsoever
  3. metal archives is explicitly outlined as a non-reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal#External links and WP:ALBUMAVOID
  4. hardwired magazine does not cover the album in significant depth nor does Hardwired magazine appear a reliable source
  5. sonicperspectives Not bad content wise but I am concerned about the reliability of the publication itself given that it sonicperspectives.com does not have an article nor is it listed at WP:RSP
  6. hardrockhaven appears to be pure over the top WP:PUFFERY that would not be allowed into a WP:RS review
  7. myglobalmind concerns me about reliability of the publication based on myglobalmind.com not being an article and not being listed at WP:RSP.
  8. metallized.it is non-trivial in coverage but concerning in reliability since it describes itself as a webzine.
  9. thrashcore is non-trivial in coverage but it is a self-described zine, which are WP:SPS

  Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV, and a general lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable publications. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC); updated given new info re WP:ALBUMAVOID 04:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Evergrey. The band article was kept at that AfD and there is no reason not to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Evergrey. Seems like a good option to me. Since this isn't notable on it's own, but still might be a search term worth redirecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Ragazzini[edit]

Emil Ragazzini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced biographical stub about a person notable only as mayor of a city. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because it's possible to verify that they existed -- the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that establishes his political significance, not just the ability to write "he was a mayor, the end". Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I don't see any reason why he or any of the other stubbed Split mayors couldn't be boldly redirected to the list of mayors of Split article until the time at which someone updates the article with sources which demonstrate their notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as local politician, if a mayor of a country's 2nd-5th largest city becomes notable, it's usually for something in addition to the mayorship. Geschichte (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to small of a position of to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. Plus, the sourcing just isn't there anyway. That said, I'd be fine with a redirect also. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange County, Florida elementary schools[edit]

List of Orange County, Florida elementary schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced list of not notable schools. The list doesn't link to a single Orange County school. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly verifiable regardless of current state of sourcing. I think we might typically merge such lists to the parent school district article, which here is Orange County Public Schools, and with the use of columns the page length could be kept down. Nonnotable schools (which is most elementary schools in the U.S.) can just be delinked. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This subpage was created and linked to the parent article to improve readability. Similar to the existing "List of Orlando middle schools" subpage which is incorrectly labelled and should be "List of Orange County, Florida middle schools." If these list must be merged, in accordance to a Wikipedia policy, than a member of the Wikipedia staff can fix it. The content should not be deleted even if the page must. sdytmz4 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge the appropriate entries to Orange County Public Schools. This need not be a separate article, and merge the middle school list as well. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These schools were already listed on the district but were removed by the creator of this list article. I've reverted the edit and cleaned up the list in the district article, delinking the ones without an article. However it is lacking sources. Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the changes made by Steven (Editor) (thanks for making the changes).   // Timothy :: talk  08:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue Welcome, Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lists that were split from articles are subject to same guidelines as any article and the list was replaced in parent article so this is not needed for content or authorship. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list seems to be redundant since the schools are already mentioned in another article and it fails the notability guidelines anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Dudan[edit]

Leonardo Dudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical stub, referenced only to a very short namecheck of the subject's existence in a book, of a person notable only as mayor of a city. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because it's possible to verify that they existed -- the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that establishes his political significance, not just the ability to write "he was a mayor, the end". Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as local politician, if a mayor of a country's 2nd-5th largest city becomes notable, it's usually for something in addition to the mayorship. Geschichte (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable stub. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and Geschichte. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derman tragedy[edit]

Derman tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent WP:V fail. I don't think I trust any of the sites listed as references, and a GSearch for "Derman tragedy" does not reveal anything else that looks reliable. ru:Дерманская трагедия exists, but the only online refs are to LiveJournal, which is surely not reliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no reason whatsoever to distrust the foreign-languages references presented; this is an entirely typical description of Einsatzgruppen type activities in the Ukraine. I would invite the OP to consider taking his problems with the sources, if he distrusts them, to WP:RSN before listing anything for deletion. Struck; neutral; comments withdrawn. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:As regards the reliability of the sources I would invite Ezhiki to make any comments he wishes, and to nominate another of our gold-standard Russian/Ukrainian language editors to do the same, whether you believe this article should be definitely deleted, or any other viewpoint. Also Noclador, Wreck Smurfy who have some experience in such topics, please make any comments on whether you believe the article should be definitely deleted, or any other viewpoint. I am aware of WP:CANVASS and I am attempting to word this "Comment" notice so that the invited editors may be free to make any comments they choose. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the external links is a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty a long article in Ukrainian about the events. That's a reputable source. Looking at the wiki article and the Radio Liberty article it seems that the reason it's only included as an external link is that the Radio Liberty article is more nuanced and has much lower numbers of victims. Keep and rework with the article, ideally a Ukrainian editor will do this and use this short documentary about Derman in WWII and this oral history of Derman during WWII. noclador (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it really lacks independent and reliable sources. It looks and reads like Polish/Russian propaganda and has signs of original research. Wikipedia is not a tribune for political and historical battles. With all respect to everyone, sincerely --Synhuliak (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but heavily tag for better sourcing -- If true, this was a serious war crime committed by Ukrainians in Nazi pay (which would be notable). Inevitably such incidents are the subject of competing claims, but that does not mean they did not happen. The problem is with getting adequate sourcing, and knowing which are RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If true" says it all, there is nothing to satisfy WP:V, so this page should be deleted.Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination), we need stronger sources to have a standalone article on an alleged massacre. (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would say keep if WP:V can be met. However, we must be especially careful that this topic be verified, acknowledging the numerous Arbitration decisions around Eastern Europe in WWII. There are many strong emotions that rise in these topics. Without better insight into the sources, I agree Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) provides good advice on how to evaluate these articles' WP:V. At this time, I do not see the necessary sourcing met. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is mainly unsourced, therefore failing WP:GNG and seems to mostly contain OR (it could have been lifted from somewhere also). So, it's a clear delete case in my book. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation Day[edit]

Recreation Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." that is required by WP:GNG (quoted wording from NALBUM criterion #1) and is a fundamental building block of notability policy. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Stop proposing random deletions. Relevant album by a relevent band, might as well just delete every other album by them then Heiko Gerber (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heiko. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Heiko Gerber and GhostDestroyer100: Rationale expanded to clarify the nomination. There does not appear to be enough coverage of the album to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Given that the main band page has been kept, would a redirect be reasonable? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all albums to Evergrey discography. The track listings can be condensed into collapsed templates there. BD2412 T 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Heiko Gerber. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28]. With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Source by source review:

  1. seaoftranquility appears to be a forum post(?) in a source of questionable notability that is barely 3 paragraphs long is non-RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID
  2. blabbermouth is a reliable source, but appears to be reviewing less than half the album
  3. metal-archives is an unreliable source, as explicitly listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal#External links
  4. sputnikmusic appears user generated, which does nothing for notability is not RS per WP:MUSICRS as it is not a clearly marked staff or emeritus review.
  5. metal-rules does not exactly strike me as a professional review site with editorial oversight based on the quality of the review
  6. AllMusic is a good review

  Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV, and a general lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable publications. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheSandDoctor: Sea of Tranquility is not a reliable source, it is listed at "unreliable sources" on WP:ALBUMAVOID. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, GhostDestroyer100. I have amended above (with this same edit) to reflect that new info. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. " ------ Aside from the ones mentioned here are more: metal storm (considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS), sputnikmusic.com (considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS), rockhard.de, powermetal.de -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that albums do not inherit notability from their artists (see "Albums" subsection of WP:NALBUMS), regardless of how notable or well covered the artist is (correlation does not imply causation is probably relevant). Albums and singles etc must demonstrate independent notability based on the coverage present in reliable sources. While it is true that metal storm is considered a reliable source by WP:MUSICRS, the important caveat that was missed and is listed there is:

1. Must be 2009 or later
2. Must be a staff or emeritus review

in order to be considered a reliable source. The one that you linked fails to meet both qualifications, being from 2004 and clearly marked as a guest review; the latter of which is WP:USERG (also per MUSICRS). When it comes to sputnik, the source is a user review (not tagged as staff), which falls under the WP:USERG caveat which is listed at WP:MUSICRS. Rock Hard (magazine) is identified by WP:MUSICRS as being reliable, but is a fairly short review and one is not enough. Power metal is not listed in WP:A/S and I am not sure on, but does not have an article and my concern is WP:SPS. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have AllMusic, Blabbermouth, and Rock Music now who meet all necessary criteria. Enough to keep the article imo Heiko Gerber (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Evergrey discography - aside from the two extremely unconvincing Keep !votes, this appears to fail GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Graf[edit]

Rebekah Graf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, coverage doesn't rise above mere-mentions or tabloids, lead roles in The Dirt (film) and Capsized: Blood in the Water don't add up to WP:NACTOR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough and has stared in a few famous movies, although Variety alone seems to be the most notable source for the article information. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The extent of coverage about the subject in the Variety article [29] is Though Butch has a kinda-sorta girlfriend (Rebekah Graf), his only real ally is 18-year-old sister Dawn (Chelsea Ricketts), who urges him to escape this unhappy home. This is not significant coverage _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is the primary subject of several articles in reliable, independent sources. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you specify which sources you believe meet these criteria? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails SIGCOV. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article subject may not be cited in substantial sources, but is starring or significant part of several prominent films. Subject matter has significance. Just an observation, but this would also justify articles for character actors who have parts in hundreds of films or other productions to warrant an article, even though there may not be multiple significant sources for that actor. Prussian-Hussar (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: A very borderline article, in my opinion. I feel that she is on the cusp of clearing the notability guidelines, and she seems to be on an upward trajectory. If the article is kept I would suggesting adding this Deadline source: here. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Missing WP:SIGCOV but she did multiple roles for WP:NACTOR. As Dflaw4 said she seems to be on an upward trajectory. - Roger editor (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a consensus that the sources available do not convey notability on this person (not to be confused with other Adam Schwartz's who might or might not be notable). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schwartz[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Adam Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find the CEO not notable and fails WP:NBIO. The references are mostly about TeePublic and the Forbes ref is a sponsored publication. It is WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he stole my idea from Busted tees so I think he should be deleted just like we did before. If you look back at the history of BustedTees, they were built on the back of artists like me, and we at one point calculated that 73% of the tees on the site were from part of our collective. Then, they made a new business, copied most of the designs, without any credit or recognition or compensation (which, frankly, living in an unheated flat, is the most important thing, unfortunately.) When you look back at his pages that we deleted from 10 years ago, you'll see that we had information up that was taken down, so clearly he doesn't want the truth to be there, so frankly we may have to file a suit to get the truth out there. It's unfortunate in this day and age there's so much capitalism that's stealing from hard working creative types (I mean, look at all the "exposure" I'm getting) so thank you Amkgp for your work on exposing this, and hopefully, causing some justice to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.205.61 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC) — 208.58.205.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As the creator of the article, it looked like it was deleted in 2007 and 2010, and there's been a lot since then published on him , pro-and con. I'll go to work on putting better references in. I appreciate the feedback. Additionally, the Forbes article does have a lot of advertisements, but it is not sponsored content. Nomination requirements for the award are found here.Chestsuva (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chestsuva, For information, Forbes.com is generally considered unreliable. See Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media ~ Amkgp 💬 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the 2007 seems to be a different person with same name ~ Amkgp 💬 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through it pretty carefully, this seems to be coming from the magazine/editorial side. I agree with you about Forbes and their "contributors" in general, though, and don't generally use them. Also, if a different person was deleted in 2007, would we give this a bit more chance to breath? Working on adding more in. Chestsuva (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He may be a mover and shaker, and up and coming, but has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. The Forbes pages do not count towards notability. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI've had a look at the article's sources and there are others; NYTimes and some trade pubs are independent reliable sources. Enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. At very least, let's relist and see if author can add any more. Would also like to look at 2007 deletion that seems to be about EFF attorney, which may shade some of our views 76.192.154.136 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)— 76.192.154.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete I agree with comments above, not enough reliable resources. Forbes is known for the ease at which regular people can become published or otherwise covered in the news. While an impressive mover-and-shaker as one editor described, there are many mover-shaker people among us, most of which are not currently notable. If the original editor has any other detail to contribute that support WP:N, they should do so.10Sany1? (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per scope. - Owais ^Talk 23:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these three votes add much to the previous muddled discussion. Yes, Forbes is generally focused on churnalism, and has many, many pay to play options, however, the listing for Schwartz was based on their (vanishingly slim) print, independent material. While this is definitely a sad death knell on the continuing decline of independent print journalism, that makes me weep, it did seem like that particular focus met GNG. Also, I'm slightly concerned that there's been a little conflation between this Adam Schwartz and the other one who works at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and if this gets deleted, it appears that, based on the earlier discussion, there's confusion between the two identities and it's really going to muddy the waters re: the EFF page, which I've seen done occasionally, and seems like a disambiguation page might be considerably better, (Note to Closer; I'm happy to propose one) and then resume this deletion discussion in order to determine that we've met all the criteria that are needed. Chestsuva (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact this person may have adversely affected the financial future of someone who edits here on Wikipedia, while horrific, is of no consequence to the notability of the subject and does not disqualify them from having an article. Forbes Magazine editorial section in which the writers are among the actual staff (primarily found in their printed versions) is ALWAYS considered a reliable and verifiable independent source. The New York Times is considered reliable. All that matters is GNG and if the article is written with a NPOV from the available reliable sources. It appears this subject does. AfD is not "article cleanup". You can't say, if...then this... Either he is notable or he is not, period. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hey Tsistunagiska, you're going around various AfDs putting GNG on a pedestal, ahead of appropriate subject-specific notability guidelines. Perhaps you are unaware but that viewpoint is just plain wrong. We have policies and guidelines. Policies trump guidelines and WP:N policy states in WP:SNG "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and the subject to WP:SPIP and WP:SIGCOV concerns. In the NYT article report it says of helping in an event organizing that does not make him notable 42.106.199.217 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per IP, above, disagree with the sentence about "NYT article report it says of helping in an event organizing that does not make him notable", has absolutely no relevance to ^[1] which is an important story, and this whole "T-shirt" thing seems to be avoiding the EFF component. 64.231.48.39 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)— 64.231.48.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete All notable events are tied to the company. 1292simon (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing significant outside the scope of his company. Serankail (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability criteria. None of the references contain Independent Content which is the other half of being an independent reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Once the vague Keep votes by now-blocked editors are disregarded, there is a comprehensive consensus that the sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability, with a strong implication that this is significantly promotional. ~ mazca ^talk 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetri Hogan[edit]

Dimetri Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we go again - this is a completely and utterly non-notable individual and literally nothing has changed since the last AFD. In fact, this borders on a hoax as the primary claims here are not in the sources and if we remove them, we're left with almost nothing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I declined the speedy, but am at the moment neutral on notability. I want to look further into things like this source. Aware of the issues around the Maxim piece thanks to the Nom's research. StarM 14:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source itself it says the same thing Maxim does and is published by T1, which the subject operates and is a digital advertising agency. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Praxidicae. I haven't yet had the chance to review, however have no objection to this closing if a consensus develops speedily. Seems from your nom that maybe SALT should be considered if it's repeatedly problematic. StarM 19:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I'd say in terms of WP:BASIC this is borderline; some of the sources cited are clearly promo fluff, but a few seem just about okay, and put together might add up to general notability. However, I've seen nothing that comes close to WP:CREATIVE notability (on which point, the list of alleged awards is unreferenced), and to me, that tilts this towards delete. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete paid for-spam with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 15:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I think a speedy would be appropriate. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maxim, Vman, Fashionweekdaily, Flaunt are major magazines in the fashion sector. There are many more citations about the subject also available in Google if you do a basic research including from the news websites also. There are citations available which shows he worked major celebrities and toured with live shows which the nomitaror removed before proposing deletion.Alanzie (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alanzie (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even though some of them are PR, I think at least 3-4 references which are good to consider and pass WP:GNG. However, I would like to see some refs to his achievements before voting. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really concerned about your understanding of references and sourcing. Anyone - including me, can generate 20+ "references" about themselves. The quantity is irrelevant. It's the quality. Every. single. source here is PR, a passing mention or blatantly fake. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said quantity is more relevant than quality. I just said some of the Refs are good enough to consider. Please stop pushing. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject does not meet WP:ARTIST due to a lack of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The quality of the sources covering the topic (both on Wiki and off) are generally poor; they are either found in borderline reliable sources, are laced with WP:PRIMARY information (thus failing the independent requirement), or lack in-depth coverage. For example, The best source currently cited (from The Source) seems to be a press release for Hogan taking a job at an advertising firm, the Vegas article was written by a publicist (not magazine staff), and the Maxim article was (per the article page) presented by T1 Advertising - the same firm which recently appointed Hogan as CCO. Once you cut through all the native advertising and placed PR, none of the sources cited (or that could be cited via a WP:BEFORE check) credibly indicate the subject meets the criteria laid down by WP:ARTIST, and the repeated issues with WP:PRIMARY information makes me discount GNG as well. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to closing admin I have added more citations and content after this process started.Kindly take a look before making the decision.Alanzie (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Just because some of the sources are promotional does not mean that all of the sources are unreliable or not independent. He has WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG based on the sources provided. Also WP:HEY with newly added references. - Roger editor (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, which sources would those be? The black hat SEO ones or the blatant press releases? Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like clarification; some of the new sources added seemed to be re-cites of existing ones. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject has multiple independent coverage and easily passes GNG. Serankail (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the thoroughness of the vote above; the editor commented here had participated in another AfD less than a minute before and that's not a lot of time to go through 20-odd references. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have looked at the revision history of page, it seems that significant news sources have been recently added to the page, he easily passes WP:GNG. Billyshudson (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is Billyshudson's 6th edit in Wikipedia altogether. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A source analysis to combat the ridiculous WP:SPA votes:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ibtimes.sg/dimetri-hogan-rise-radiant-child-44548	regurgitated press release	WP:RSP		✘ No
https://nypost.com/2015/07/08/why-kanye-cant-get-enough-of-these-twin-designers/			not about him, it just has a photo he supposedly took	✘ No
https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/art/soho-arts-club-creative-hotspot			blog with no content about him, just a photo he took	✘ No
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/343420-dimetri-hogan-throwback-to-90-s-fashion-beauty-with-the-diana-instant-square	no byline, allows guest posting	not an rs, no editorial standards and allows guest posting		✘ No
https://www.thestatesman.com/inspiration-hub/ace-photographer-dimetri-hogan-wants-to-showcase-mumbai-in-a-different-light-1502884950.html	statesman "inspiration hub" is their self publishing/guest posting/press release area			✘ No
https://flaunt.com/content/sheltered-but-not-exiled-2elkc			not about him, just his name as photog	✘ No
https://www.maxim.com/style/how-dimetri-hogan-went-from-fashion-photographer-to-a-six-figure-ad-exec	republished press release submitted to maxim by T1 where he works			✘ No
https://vman.com/article/the-creative-director-introducing-the-next-generation-dimetri-hogan/	ugen piece, based off of an interview and press release			✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12306736/	imdb isn't rs			✘ No
https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/32498/vic-mensa/	listing, not about him			✘ No
https://vegasmagazine.com/dimetri-hogan-its-more-than-food	interview	~ only for primary information		✘ No
https://thesource.com/2020/01/23/dimetri-hogan-brings-a-tasteful-spotlight-to-modern-fashion-and-art-awarded-new-cco-position-at-t1-advertising/	rehashed press release	~		✘ No
https://www.worldcat.org/title/uomo-vogue/oclc/981864946			the italian version of this magazine does not have any coverage of him in the slightest outside of a single mention as the creator of a photo	✘ No
https://issuu.com/voguecollections18/docs/l_uomo_20vogue_20magazine_20_23479_20march_202017_			see 13	✘ No
https://flaunt.com/content/dimetri-hogan-becoming-comfortable-in-my-own-skin	based off an interview + press release	~		✘ No
https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/gabriel-perez-silva-photography-show.html			doesn't even mention Hogan	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11573468/			see #9	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbcyfRztHmw			a random youtube video that says nothing about him	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Delete — damn! y’all made Praxidicae go through the arduous task of creating a source assessment table for something she clearly already stated in the rationale for nominating the article for deletion? Which was (and still is, as we can now see) that there are literally 0 reliable sources in the article. Oh well, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not all the links are press releases. The Italian edition of Vogue, NY Post are good references. These links are enough for a photographer to establish his notability. Satisfies WP:BLP1E. Bretalins (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it does not establish anything. He isn’t a photographer for Vogue, he submitted it to vogue and it’s not even about him. It’s about the clothes. That does not make him notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the NYPost article, which is not about Hogan and makes no mention of Hogan in the article body - he only furnished the photograph. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits in Japan[edit]

Greatest Hits in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable bit of commercial exploitation. References are not sufficient to establish notability. Could be redirected to Queen discography, but there is no mention of it there. TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Meets WP:NALBUM #2, it ranked at 7th on Oricon. I've also added the album to Queen discography, so it's a valid redirect target now. Jumpytoo Talk 21:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM #2, it ranked at 7th on Oricon, and there is sufficient significant coverage that can be found on the Japanese Wikipedia article (examples [30] [31] [32]). Jumpytoo Talk 01:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Queen discography#Compilation albums. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as required per WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Queen discography#Compilation albums. This album gets closer to notability than the nominator implies. Reaching the top 10 in Japan certainly helps, and it got some American media coverage too (e.g. [33]). But otherwise it remains pretty obscure, unless anyone can come up with more reliable Japanese media coverage. (If it is entirely in Japanese, most of us here would be unable to search for it.) If that becomes available, the article can be revived from redirect status. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 23:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed vote) - I have changed my vote above thanks to the reliable Japanese sources found by Jumpytoo. See also [34]. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jumpytoo. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM with sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NALBUM. Serankail (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert and speedy close —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Esmaeili[edit]

Mohsen Esmaeili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PhD student, far from passing WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just realised it used to be an article about a different person with the same name - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohsen_Esmaeili&oldid=965007417. So I'd be happy if it was just reverted back to that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hmm, I am not even sure how to !vote here. Certainly this edit by User:Mohsenesmaeili1991, which created the current version of the article, was highly inappropriate and even block-worthy. The edit removed a previously existing article about a clearly notable subject and replaced it by an article about the subject with the same name who is clearly non-notable. Moreover, based on the username, User:Mohsenesmaeili1991, it is likely that we are dealing with a WP:AUTO situation here. The edit should certainly be reverted, but it would be even better if an admin performed a selected revdel here and removed from the page history the edits introduced by User:Mohsenesmaeili1991. So perhaps some form of speedy close+selected revdel would be an appropriate outcome here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to original form - this new autobiographical CV is totally inappropriate and the fact that they've replaced a notable person's article with this just makes it worse Spiderone 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy revert This is blatant page hijacking replaced with a résumé, this should have been created as a new article or draft. I would consider this page hijacking to be gaming the system in my opinion, since they are not autoconfirmed and can't create new articles, they've just gone and hijacked an existing article. Additionally, they assert that It was the description of other person in Iran goverment who is supporting ideas against human rights. in their edit summary. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy revert and snow close. Hijacking for self promotion. --T*U (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert I have never seen such a horrible mess. We really need to block that new user. This is his only edit, but it is so grossely inapropriate I do not see any hope for him. It is his only edits at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Zamora Afd was not quite technically completed and so this consensus only applies to Flores. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Flores[edit]

Rebeca Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Rivadeneira. Also bundling Ximena Zamora who was discussed in that very AFD, but not technically nominated. Geschichte (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass GNG. Serankail (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both due to GNG failure Spiderone 21:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both for reasons stated by nominator (it was my afd tagging foul up that missed Ximena Zamora) ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aankh Micholi (2020 film)[edit]

Aankh Micholi (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence filming has begun, per WP:NFF, all sources stem from film's announcement and how filming will take place, but I have found no other updates BOVINEBOY2008 10:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also, if filming hasn't commenced, then there's no way it's actually due for release in 2020. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to second the view that it is extremely unlikely that a film that has not even started filming could possible be realeased before the end of the year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I updated the article about shooting of the film. Mr. Smart LION 05:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:TOOSOON ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The movie is not released yet. Serankail (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen 1996[edit]

Bergen 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly unnotable EP, notability WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the EP: [35], [36], [37], [38] and [39]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of the links provided above are ineligible per WP:ALBUMAVOID. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mechanical toy. Any content can be merged from the article history (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bump and Go toys[edit]

Bump and Go toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Given the near total lack of references (outside a link to a crowdsourced site=unreliable fan project), there is no content to merge, and anyway there is no valid merge/redirect target I see. The PROD was removed with no valid rationale despite my request to provide one (per best practices) by a habitual deprodder, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This mechanism enables automata to cope with obstacles so that they spin their wheels and then charge off in another direction. A nice analogy, eh? The details can be found in Tin Toys which explains how it works and that it is also known as the "Mystery Action" or "push-and-go". As such vintage toys are quite collectable, there are plenty more works of this kind and so there's good scope for improvement per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either Mechanical toy or Automaton. I don't think this is a notable enough subject on it's own to warrant a separate article. The term "Bump and Go" is vague and as Piotrus says it isn't used anywhere to describe toys. IMO it isn't correct to say that every single instance of a toy that changes direction by opposite force is a "Bump and Go" toy. There has to be instances where the term is actually used. "Mystery action" doesn't cut it as far as there 1/1 connection it and "Bump and Go" toys. That said, it would be fine as a redirect to the articles I cited. Both of which discuss similar things and could probably use information about "Mystery Action" and "push-and-go" toys. Especially Mechanical toy. Which appears to be on the verge of having it's own AfD. Ultimately, this is another good case of there not needing to be three different articles on almost the same subject. Really, they are all talking about the same thing. So, redirect it to a better sourced and more relevant is the correct thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge this page with Mechanical toy It should be an H2 section under "Type" along with pulley toys, crank toys, and gear toys. None of those subcategories of mechanical toys have warranted their own page, I see this type of mechanical toy in the same light. 10Sany1? (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mechanical_toy: There is simply no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. Does not meet either WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services.   // Timothy :: talk  10:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SocialChorus, Inc.[edit]

SocialChorus, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nominating yet again, nothing but PR spam and for exactly the same reason as the last one. Praxidicae (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2020-08 no consensus

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma O'Toole[edit]

Gemma O'Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ineligible for PROD as was part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue and was kept but I don't think O'Toole was actually discussed at any length. She has made one solitary appearance in the W-League as a substitute. There is a long standing consensus that a player, male or female, that scrapes through WP:NFOOTY by the skin of their teeth should meet WP:GNG. Since GNG is comprehensively failed here, consensus is that it should be deleted. Spiderone 09:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utter failure of every policy and guideline. As shown in 50+ AFDs, a male player with similar lack of accolades would also be deleted. Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While i have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, it is incorrect to say she fails N:FOOTY, as the nom rightly mentioned, she scrapes through N:FOOTY, but fails GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both GNG and our notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Struck[edit]

Lara Struck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; I can find no significant coverage of her career with Kaiserslautern or the Australian clubs that she has played for; she doesn't appear to have made any appearances in the W-League or the national team so has not played at the highest level of women's sport either. Also, the article creator appears to have had second thoughts about the article as they blanked the page a few years after creating it. Not eligible for PROD as has had one before that was removed by the person placing the PROD for some reason. Spiderone 09:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article creator Solarhyper created Liezl van Zyl who was a hoax. There is seemingly nothing about Struck's move to Kaiserslautern other than wiki mirrors which is damning. She fails GNG and NFOOTBALL and may be a hoax. Dougal18 (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Her 168 appearances for Darwin are also not backed up by any sources whatsoever. The contents of this article are highly questionable. Spiderone 10:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree, could not find any IRSs via Australasian news databases. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I could not find any coverage of her, and the club she supposedly played for, the Darwin Buffettes, does not even play Association football, it plays Australian rules football. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG TWFcode (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both GNG and out incredibly broad inclusion guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Revolutionary Council[edit]

Egyptian Revolutionary Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP, just a movement established in 2014 with propaganda then disappeared after few months, their website doesn't work too, no achievements, political effects nor notable activities, I think it is (WP:NEWSBRIEF) a news story covered in many newspapers.

also 5 of 10 refs in the article from their website, and that is against (Independent of the subject). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 11:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please don't confuse with Egyptian Revolutionary Command Council. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 11:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Egyptian revolution of 2011.Mccapra (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Half the links are from a source not independent of the subject; and several of the other links I checked appear to be dead. If the subject gains more notability going forward the page can be revived and improved.10Sany1? (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually I agree now. The redirect I suggested would probably not be optimal. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season[edit]

2011 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed but no reason given, my concern is that the article does not pass WP:GNG, coverage is entirely WP:ROUTINE. Also note WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NSEASONS, which says that such articles should be redirected to the main team article. Spiderone 07:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination, failing WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 13:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Looks like sufficient reliable sourcing for GNG Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorkyball[edit]

Jorkyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the spirit of WP:MADEUP. If jorkyball was a notable game, there would be GNews hits on matches, events etc. It is not. Geschichte (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible keep per the currently-used citation and some of the notable coverage of the sport that's somehow listed as external links in the article. "If jorkyball was a notable game, there would be GNews hits" Did you even do a Google News search? The sport also has an international federation where its website has announced competitions in countries like Japan and places such as Quebec. All of this evidence shows that this isn't a WP:MADEUP sport. HumanxAnthro (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I did a gnews search, maybe it renders different things in different countries. Geschichte (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in the United States (specifically New York state), and this gives me all sorts of coverage (albeit foreign language) about the sport itself, events of the World Championship and the sport's World Cup, Jorkyball offered in children's play centers in Dubai, certain players and teams, and pages, pages more... HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable or, at most, redirect to List of types of football. GiantSnowman 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See fr:Jorkyball and jorkyball.org; it is not made up. Non-English coverage justifies notability: 1, 2, 3, 4. More non-English sources can be found by searching "Jorkyball" in Google News. Wikinights (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the French language sources found would appear to be enough to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 23:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The French and Italian sources provided by Wikinights do appear to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babloo Srivastava[edit]

Babloo Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article still fails WP:SUSTAINED. References are bursts of news coverage that do not demonstrate notability ~ Amkgp 💬 06:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]